|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet.
|
On April 02 2015 02:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:48 Paljas wrote:
no, his position says that women should be able to make choices about their own body.
So what reproductive rights do men have then, if they can't decide what happens to their off-spring?
they have the right to use appropriate tools for contraception
for the record, i think that all sentient beings have the right to live, the right to not be a victim of violence and the right not to be treated as nothing but a property.
late term pregnancy (early pregancies are a non issue, as early fetuses are not sentient) however, are a unique issue, as the right of life conflicts with the right of the pregnant person. the right of the pregnant person should be valued higher. the only sensible cut off line for abortions in that situation seems to be the birth itself.
|
On April 02 2015 02:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run  Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support. Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years. Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one? i dont consider either a punishment. also, child support goes for the mother and father; its not limited to the father.
In theory. In practice that is wholly incorrect.
|
On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet.
she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her...
|
On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her...
Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money.
|
On April 02 2015 03:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support. Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years. Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one? i dont consider either a punishment. also, child support goes for the mother and father; its not limited to the father. In theory. In practice that is wholly incorrect.
care to elaborate?
edit:
On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet.
no need to elaborate. i know the silly little rabbit hole you are going down now.
|
On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money.
well yeah because a 2 year old wouldn't know what to do with the money but they're probably forced to use it for the child, aren't they?
|
On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money.
Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility.
|
On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money.
I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges?
|
On April 02 2015 03:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 02:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.
[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support. Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years. Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one? i dont consider either a punishment. also, child support goes for the mother and father; its not limited to the father. In theory. In practice that is wholly incorrect. care to elaborate?
Women are far more likely to receive custody.
In the rare event that a man receives custody he is FARRRRRRRRRR less likely to see even a fuckin dime of child support, let alone 18 years of it.
|
On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility.
Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what.
"If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility."
|
On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges?
Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again.
On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility."
Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now.
|
On April 02 2015 03:01 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 17:29 coverpunch wrote:On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any. So...people with mental disorders who can't possess a concept of self are not worthy of life? Okay, mein Herr... Sentience is a rotten way to judge the value of life. By that logic, a third of your whole life is "unworthy" because you're asleep and temporarily lose your awareness of self. You aren't forming an argument yourself about what makes a thing worthy of life. Until you do, I can't take your argument seriously. I'm fine with saying that a right to life exists on a spectrum and certain people have a greater right to life than others. The organism wakes up and its still self aware of what it is and what it has done... Or action have been done which show it is it views itself and acts as if it is a distinct individual/person. Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 17:35 cLutZ wrote:On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any. No its not. Its much more subjective and nebulous than qualities such as "conception", "viability", and "birth" and after the last nearly all of the countervailing arguments in favor of abortion evaporate. Moreover, it results in the horrific result of killing walking, talking, 12 month olds who cannot articulate that very mature concept that you have laid out. And not just 12 months, you are in favor of killing average kids much older, like age 6 years +. It's a empirical scientific question when an organism obtains that concept of self. The use of language would be likely the high cut-off point with arguments being made that non-verbal animals could have the right to life based on other characteristics.
its more of a philisophical question then a science one because the idea of what qualifies as a person depends on how you use the term person. at least thats how I look at it. obviously different areas define person differently. also the conept of self is complicated in itself and has other problems. plus not everyone defines personhood that way.
|
On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges?
Meth probably a higher chance. Using child support on something other than the child? That's pretty commonplace.
|
On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, b ut men are stuck with one no matter what."If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility."
Men don't have pregnancies though...
|
On April 02 2015 03:15 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, b ut men are stuck with one no matter what."If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Men don't have pregnancies though...
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor.
|
On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility."
Yeah it's a double-standard. They exist all over the place because life isn't fair. The woman has to deal with the pregnancy, so the woman can decide to get an abortion. You would hope that in a healthy relationship they would discuss it and the man's input would be involved, but it is ultimately up to her because it is her body incubating this fetus. Deal with it.
You're conflating abortion with child-support, when they are totally separate issues. Abortion is purely about the pregnancy, while child-support is making sure that this child you have created together and brought into the world is cared for if you decide to skedaddle. This issue is completely separate from father's rights, which is admittedly an area that society could do much better on. The stigma surrounding single fathers is absurd, and assuming the father has sole custody and the woman is able to pay, he should be getting just as much money as if the situation were reversed. In practice, it almost never works this way.
EDIT: But Jormundr saying that fathers "don't have a chance" at custody is silly. Don't be hyperbolic. The injustice is there, no need to exaggerate it.
|
On April 02 2015 03:13 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Meth probably a higher chance. Using child support on something other than the child? That's pretty commonplace.
Much like the abuse of government subsidies to the impoverished, I am sure the misuse of child support would be in the minority. Like all of these issues, there are a couple cases people love to trot out as flagpoles of abuse, but they are the minority.
|
On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:15 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, b ut men are stuck with one no matter what."If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Men don't have pregnancies though... Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor.
That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue.
|
On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:15 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, b ut men are stuck with one no matter what."If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Men don't have pregnancies though... Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue.
Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
